Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You may want to reconsider whether this edit summary really qualifies as "snide". As an uninvolved editor, I don't see it. Take a deep breath and step back a bit.Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking through that article, I'm not seeing the copyright violation. Where is the copyright violation in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Schadenfreude. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Stlemur (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I really off base on the encyclopedic content of this article? It seems to me that the biggest reason that it got AfD'ed was because it flies in the face of the idea that there is no word in English for what the Germans call "schadenfreude."
What do you think?
I don't think this is in breach of Wikipedia:Canvassing. It appears to be a neutrally worded message to people that Evrik has worked with in the past. It's asking people for their opinion, and not soliciting a vote. Now, was it done by email, yes, but I'm okay with that. I imagine that many wikipedians use off wiki means of communication, especially the more established users. The truth is it does not appear that all the people he asked for opinions have supported him - so it appears that the effect was neutral. Where is the problem, if you can't ask the people you know the best for advice and council - then who do you ask? Oh, is anyone claiming they don't know Evrik personally, or that he held a gun to their heads. I tend to believe that some users have been following the activity. I can't figure out why Evrik would ask someone who was a known sock puppeteer for help - that doesn't help his case does it?
Betsy says, "Wikipedia policy "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." This is higly hypocritical seeing as she edits her husband's wikipedia article. In fact, she is the one who caused this whole brewhaha by going to AfD in the first place rather than, trying to seek "comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution." Hypocrite.
The whole Icelandic discussion is pretty amusing because it isn't really true or applicable to this case, but hides an even bigger point. Early on in this discussion, before this whole thing came to this AfD, there were some bad faith actions on the part of the editors, perhaps Evrik should have sought consensus before making some of the changes he did, but then why is there the whole WP:Bold policy? Reading through this, I don't understand why this wasn't worked out It seems to me that the nomination was made in an effort to bulldoze Evrik into submission - also something done in questionable faith. Betsy Devine is an experienced use, so her naivete is disingenuous. Well, that appears to have had mixed results seeing as Betsy has had her biography nominated for deletion, another user got blocked and Evrik has placed himself in a self-imposed exile.
What I find most amazing about this whole discussion is the way that the editors have attacked each other; the whole point of the discussion has been lost. The attacks are very troubling, because they were rooted in the same troubling way this article was nominated for deletion. Why have they done their best to discredit every contributor who has disagreed with them? Attack, after attack, after attack. Accusations of cabals, secret societies yada yada yada. Wikipedia doesn't really work by consensus; it works by who gets the most votes. If someone is losing a vote, the best thing to do is swiftboat them. I hope that users stop attacking each other, this whole discussion has been an abuse of the processes that are supposed to make this community stronger. As an infrequent editor, I find it troubling that people are being attacked for not editing too often, being new users, for living in the same area, or for being friends. CS, seems to be afraid of losing the debate on the merits. This means of disenfranchising people is discouraging. If I could wag a finger, I would wag it at all of you. As I was writing this, I saw that Evrik just got reported to the administrators, and that Betsy has decide to dogpile. Again, another attack. Really courageous seeing as Evrik has gone on break and wihdrawn from the argument. Looking through all the people who have commented it looks like at least three administrators have commented. If there was a problem, I'm sure they would have noticed it.
Philly people in happier days
The proponents of schadenfreude seem very eager to protect their turf. Why can't there be two self-referential articles? While the topics are similar, they are distinct and different. The truth is that the words, and the concepts ARE different. They have different histories and each contributes something different to Wikipedia. There is no real reason for them to be merged. I would vote "keep" the article. I can't log into my account; but I wanted my comments to be heard.
As I'm signing off, I want to point out so far betsythedevine, Deor and CS have attacked Evrik, Sur de Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex and Lblanchard. They have been accused of some pretty silly things, but here in the Wikiworld silly things take on great importance. In some ways I'm glad I can't log on.
P.S. In the time I took to write this, Evrik retired.
Response to banned sockpuppeteer happily editing from yet another IP
Thank you, South Philly for sharing the canvassing email sent out by Evrik to his friends and supporters. You characterize it is neutral. I disagree. It also misrepresents the reasoning behind the AfD of epicaricacy as 1) lack of encyclopedic content in the article and 2) pigheaded allegiance to the idea that there is no English word for Schadenfreude.
New claims that we "attacked" everyone from Philadelphia have been added to your many personal attacks on people who oppose you. We are attackers and bullies, you are the innocents! I am reminded of a remark by CS Lewis about the sensitive person who "bleeds at a touch but scratches like a wildcat." I hope some of your fellow-Philadelphians will respond to your threats against Ike9898 and Immortalgoddezz. I hope they will be much more welcome in Wikipedia meetups than banned sockpuppeteers and GBCW retirees. betsythedevine (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If an experienced Wikipedian like Evrik had explained that there is a way to get input from other editors by giving notice of a controversial merger -- or if Evrik had suggested such a move on Epicaricacy talk instead of just undoing a redirect that had consensus of all discussion participants except himself -- I would never have filed an AfD. It is only the second one I have filed in my 4 years editing Wikipedia articles, including very occasionally trying to correct mistakes on my husband's bio Frank Wilczek. I edit there rarely but openly under my wikiname. If you check out the page history, you can decide for yourself if I am adding vanity material. If you check out its talk page you can see that people who edit there know I'm his wife and sometimes ask for my input. And nobody "canvassed" me to go there and do it. I don't think my open but limited violation of a Wikipedia guideline about editing articles of people you know makes me a hypocrite when I complain about Evrik's off-wiki canvassing.
I really am sorry that the outcome of all this has been for Evrik to "retire" but I hope it will be temporary. Nobody is claiming -- I certainly am not --that Evrik is wicked, but I do think he got carried away by his enthusiasm into doing a number of inappropriate things. I complained about the actions (so did others). My complaints weren't meant as a personal attack. Everybody, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, sometimes does stuff others think they shouldn't. I think that Evrik must be a very good person on the evidence that he has so many loyal friends, quite apart from the good work he has done in Wikipedia.
On a less friendly note, if you had defended Evrik by citing Wikipedia policy instead of insulting and wikistalking me, you could have helped to calm the discussion down instead of heating it up. If my behavior was so terrible in this, you could have filed a Notice of Incident or a Request for Comment. My knowledge of these matters has, regrettably, grown due to all this fighting.
I am going to try to change the AfD to a Merge and Redirect, and I will make sure the ultimate Wikipedia article has a section mentioning "epicaricacy." betsythedevine (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)